Leica M9

Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
news under the twin stacks of Apple iPod announcements and
Beatles releases. Leica in fact announced some of its most
significant products for years. First, the M9.

The M9, sequel to the M8, is the company’s first full frame
digital rangefinder. The 18 megapixel CCD sensor, developed
by Kodak, is the same size as a 35mm frame, which means the
M9 can use all of Leica’s M-lenses at their originally
intended focal lengths. It also consigns the M8 and it’s
crop-sensor lenses to the curiosity shoppe of history.

The body itself has seen a few tweaks in button positions,
but the real changes are internal. The Kodak sensor adds
new micro-lenses which help corral the light onto the
pixels — all sensors have these tiny lenses over the photo-
sites, but rangefinders are a special case: the rear of the
lens is so close to the sensor that the angle of incidence
is particularly sharp. These new micro-lenses bend the
light to fit. The glass sensor cover has also been
redesigned and now cuts out infrared light. Previously
Leica’s workaround was to add a filter.

The shutter, too, is new, and is “microprocessor-
controlled”. Leica says that it is “particularly silent”,
which, given the legendary whisper-quiet M-series shutters
of old, is probably true. It runs up to 1/4000th of a
second and offers a maximum flash sync speed of
1/180th/sec. Stick it on your Christmas list now.

And that’s it. What? You want to know the price? $8,000,
but Amazon will let you have it for a mere $7,000 when it
ships: http://xrl.us/LeicaM9Amazon

Advertisements

"Dave U. Random" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Wired
> http://xrl.us/bfjrn2
>
> Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
>snip.........

The following post was added to the above review *after* the original
post. Just passing it on as clarification

"A quick correction here, the focal length doesn't change regardless of
how large the sensor is. Focal length is focal length whether the
film/ccd is 8*10, 35mm, or 2 1/4. The spread of light on the film/ccd
may be different but that's it. I hate to write one of those comments
that say get it right, but you folks write for a geek audience, so come
on. If you don't know what focal length means, look it up."

Advertisements

"rwalker" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:02 -0400, "BobS" <>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave U. Random" <> wrote in message
>>news:...
>>> Wired
>>> http://xrl.us/bfjrn2
>>>
>>> Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
>>>snip.........
>>
>>
>>
>>The following post was added to the above review *after* the original
>>post. Just passing it on as clarification
>>
>>"A quick correction here, the focal length doesn't change regardless of
>>how large the sensor is. Focal length is focal length whether the
>>film/ccd is 8*10, 35mm, or 2 1/4. The spread of light on the film/ccd
>>may be different but that's it. I hate to write one of those comments
>>that say get it right, but you folks write for a geek audience, so come
>>on. If you don't know what focal length means, look it up."
>>
>>
> I thought the same thing. My Canon 50 mm. lens remains 50 mm. whether
> I use it on my Digital Rebel/350D, or on my 35 mm. EOS 10s, or on my
> APS film IX.

The reality is that it is an "effective focal length" depending to which
camera it is attached.

"Pete D" <> wrote in message
news:4aaa0a69$0$27627$...
>
> "rwalker" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:02 -0400, "BobS" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dave U. Random" <> wrote in message
>>>news:...
>>>> Wired
>>>> http://xrl.us/bfjrn2
>>>>
>>>> Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
>>>>snip.........
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The following post was added to the above review *after* the original
>>>post. Just passing it on as clarification
>>>
>>>"A quick correction here, the focal length doesn't change regardless of
>>>how large the sensor is. Focal length is focal length whether the
>>>film/ccd is 8*10, 35mm, or 2 1/4. The spread of light on the film/ccd
>>>may be different but that's it. I hate to write one of those comments
>>>that say get it right, but you folks write for a geek audience, so come
>>>on. If you don't know what focal length means, look it up."
>>>
>>>
>> I thought the same thing. My Canon 50 mm. lens remains 50 mm. whether
>> I use it on my Digital Rebel/350D, or on my 35 mm. EOS 10s, or on my
>> APS film IX.
>
> The reality is that it is an "effective focal length" depending to which
> camera it is attached.

Nope. The focal length of any lens (except zooms) is constant. The angle of
view captured is a function of the size of the film or sensor. Moving a 50mm
lens from a 5D to a 7D does not alter it's focal length.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:30:04 +1000, "Pete D" <> wrote:
:
: "rwalker" <> wrote in message
: news:...
: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:53:02 -0400, "BobS" <>
: > wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>"Dave U. Random" <> wrote in message
: >>news:...
: >>> Wired
: >>> http://xrl.us/bfjrn2
: >>>
: >>> Leica decided that yesterday would be a great day to bury
: >>>snip.........
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>The following post was added to the above review *after* the original
: >>post. Just passing it on as clarification
: >>
: >>"A quick correction here, the focal length doesn't change regardless of
: >>how large the sensor is. Focal length is focal length whether the
: >>film/ccd is 8*10, 35mm, or 2 1/4. The spread of light on the film/ccd
: >>may be different but that's it. I hate to write one of those comments
: >>that say get it right, but you folks write for a geek audience, so come
: >>on. If you don't know what focal length means, look it up."
: >>
: >>
: > I thought the same thing. My Canon 50 mm. lens remains 50 mm. whether
: > I use it on my Digital Rebel/350D, or on my 35 mm. EOS 10s, or on my
: > APS film IX.
:
: The reality is that it is an "effective focal length" depending to which
: camera it is attached.

The reality is that we ought to stop talking as though a lens's "effective"
focal length on a camera most of us don't own is a sensible way to get our
heads around that lens's performance on the cameras we actually use. When I
bought my first digital SLR, I made it a point to start thinking in terms of
how each lens worked on that camera and not, say, on my old film Nikon. It
isn't that hard to learn that 30mm is a "normal" lens, 50mm is a mild
telephoto or portrain lens, 18mm (rather than 28mm) is a wide angle, etc. Once
I got used to it, I found it to be a much simpler way to go.

rwalker <> writes:
>>The reality is that we ought to stop talking as though a lens's "effective"
>>focal length on a camera most of us don't own is a sensible way to get our
>>heads around that lens's performance on the cameras we actually use.
>
> Exactly.

Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
in...

-Miles

--
Laughter, n. An interior convulsion, producing a distortion of the features
and accompanied by inarticulate noises. It is infectious and, though
intermittent, incurable.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:05:49 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
: rwalker <> writes:
: >>The reality is that we ought to stop talking as though a lens's "effective"
: >>focal length on a camera most of us don't own is a sensible way to get our
: >>heads around that lens's performance on the cameras we actually use.
: >
: > Exactly.
:
: Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
: instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
: in...

I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few people
can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they want their
picture to subtend. (I certainly can't, and I have a better mathematical
background than most.) But most photographers are at least attuned to the
concept of focal length and can usually learn to select the right lens for a
given scene (especially if most of their lenses are zooms). If we were
starting from scratch, I guess the angle-of-view idea has merit. Given where
we are now, I think I'd stick with focal length.

"Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
news:...
[]
> I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few
> people
> can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they want
> their
> picture to subtend. (I certainly can't, and I have a better mathematical
> background than most.) But most photographers are at least attuned to
> the
> concept of focal length and can usually learn to select the right lens
> for a
> given scene (especially if most of their lenses are zooms). If we were
> starting from scratch, I guess the angle-of-view idea has merit. Given
> where
> we are now, I think I'd stick with focal length.
>
> Bob

In broad terms, angle of view /is/ something which comes naturally -
although it tends to be described as "wide-angle", "normal" and
"telephoto". Tying it down to exact numbers does not come naturally to
most folks, though, except to photographers who think in "35mm
equivalent"! <G>

Robert Coe <> writes:
> : Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
> : instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
> : in...
>
> I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few
> people can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they
> want their picture to subtend. But most photographers are at least
> attuned to the concept of focal length and can usually learn to select
> the right lens for a given scene (especially if most of their lenses
> are zooms). If we were starting from scratch, I guess the
> angle-of-view idea has merit. Given where we are now, I think I'd
> stick with focal length.

Sure, for most people, AOV would just be a slightly arbitrary number
(though less so than focal-length), and they'd have to get used to it.

However, right now with digital cameras and various crop-factors, many
people are having to relearn all of this stuff anyway, often for
multiple different cameras, ... maybe it wouldn't be all that much more
work to switch to something which is constant across formats?

At least, the lens manuf.s could start writing AOV on their lenses to
make things easier for the future...

-Miles

--
Bigot, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that
you do not entertain.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:36:59 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
>Robert Coe <> writes:
>> : Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
>> : instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
>> : in...
>>
>> I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few
>> people can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they
>> want their picture to subtend. But most photographers are at least
>> attuned to the concept of focal length and can usually learn to select
>> the right lens for a given scene (especially if most of their lenses
>> are zooms). If we were starting from scratch, I guess the
>> angle-of-view idea has merit. Given where we are now, I think I'd
>> stick with focal length.
>
>Sure, for most people, AOV would just be a slightly arbitrary number
>(though less so than focal-length), and they'd have to get used to it.
>
>However, right now with digital cameras and various crop-factors, many
>people are having to relearn all of this stuff anyway, often for
>multiple different cameras, ... maybe it wouldn't be all that much more
>work to switch to something which is constant across formats?
>
>At least, the lens manuf.s could start writing AOV on their lenses to
>make things easier for the future...
>
In the context we have been discussing, AOV is not solely dependant on
the lens. Sensor/film dimensions are required to be factored into the
calculation.

Over the years I have used many different film sizes (4"x5", 1/4
plate, postcard, various 120 film formats, 35mm, 1/2 frame 35mm) and
have found that I quickly learn what lens length does what with each
camera. I don't really see it as a problem.

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:36:59 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
>
>> Robert Coe <> writes:
>>> : Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
>>> : instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
>>> : in...
>>>
>>> I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few
>>> people can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they
>>> want their picture to subtend. But most photographers are at least
>>> attuned to the concept of focal length and can usually learn to select
>>> the right lens for a given scene (especially if most of their lenses
>>> are zooms). If we were starting from scratch, I guess the
>>> angle-of-view idea has merit. Given where we are now, I think I'd
>>> stick with focal length.
>> Sure, for most people, AOV would just be a slightly arbitrary number
>> (though less so than focal-length), and they'd have to get used to it.
>>
>> However, right now with digital cameras and various crop-factors, many
>> people are having to relearn all of this stuff anyway, often for
>> multiple different cameras, ... maybe it wouldn't be all that much more
>> work to switch to something which is constant across formats?
>>
>> At least, the lens manuf.s could start writing AOV on their lenses to
>> make things easier for the future...
>>
> In the context we have been discussing, AOV is not solely dependant on
> the lens. Sensor/film dimensions are required to be factored into the
> calculation.
>
> Over the years I have used many different film sizes (4"x5", 1/4
> plate, postcard, various 120 film formats, 35mm, 1/2 frame 35mm) and
> have found that I quickly learn what lens length does what with each
> camera. I don't really see it as a problem.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

Twelve or so posts concerning focal length vs effective length. Nothing
concerning the original post, what a group.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:04:25 -0400, Dave Cohen <>
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:36:59 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Coe <> writes:
>>>> : Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
>>>> : instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
>>>> : in...
>>>>
>>>> I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few
>>>> people can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they
>>>> want their picture to subtend. But most photographers are at least
>>>> attuned to the concept of focal length and can usually learn to select
>>>> the right lens for a given scene (especially if most of their lenses
>>>> are zooms). If we were starting from scratch, I guess the
>>>> angle-of-view idea has merit. Given where we are now, I think I'd
>>>> stick with focal length.
>>> Sure, for most people, AOV would just be a slightly arbitrary number
>>> (though less so than focal-length), and they'd have to get used to it.
>>>
>>> However, right now with digital cameras and various crop-factors, many
>>> people are having to relearn all of this stuff anyway, often for
>>> multiple different cameras, ... maybe it wouldn't be all that much more
>>> work to switch to something which is constant across formats?
>>>
>>> At least, the lens manuf.s could start writing AOV on their lenses to
>>> make things easier for the future...
>>>
>> In the context we have been discussing, AOV is not solely dependant on
>> the lens. Sensor/film dimensions are required to be factored into the
>> calculation.
>>
>> Over the years I have used many different film sizes (4"x5", 1/4
>> plate, postcard, various 120 film formats, 35mm, 1/2 frame 35mm) and
>> have found that I quickly learn what lens length does what with each
>> camera. I don't really see it as a problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
>Twelve or so posts concerning focal length vs effective length. Nothing
>concerning the original post, what a group.

Having said all that, you have still not been able to address the
original point. Even more, you have not added anything worthwhile to
the direction in which the thread had branched. What are you really
trying to prove?

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:04:25 -0400, Dave Cohen <> wrote:
: Eric Stevens wrote:
: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:36:59 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
: >
: >> Robert Coe <> writes:
: >>> : Maybe it would be better to use angle-of-view or something more widely
: >>> : instead of focal length, since that's largely what people are interested
: >>> : in...
: >>>
: >>> I dunno. Angle of view isn't a concept that comes naturally. Very few
: >>> people can look at a scene and see intuitively what angle of view they
: >>> want their picture to subtend. But most photographers are at least
: >>> attuned to the concept of focal length and can usually learn to select
: >>> the right lens for a given scene (especially if most of their lenses
: >>> are zooms). If we were starting from scratch, I guess the
: >>> angle-of-view idea has merit. Given where we are now, I think I'd
: >>> stick with focal length.
: >> Sure, for most people, AOV would just be a slightly arbitrary number
: >> (though less so than focal-length), and they'd have to get used to it.
: >>
: >> However, right now with digital cameras and various crop-factors, many
: >> people are having to relearn all of this stuff anyway, often for
: >> multiple different cameras, ... maybe it wouldn't be all that much more
: >> work to switch to something which is constant across formats?
: >>
: >> At least, the lens manuf.s could start writing AOV on their lenses to
: >> make things easier for the future...
: >>
: > In the context we have been discussing, AOV is not solely dependant on
: > the lens. Sensor/film dimensions are required to be factored into the
: > calculation.
: >
: > Over the years I have used many different film sizes (4"x5", 1/4
: > plate, postcard, various 120 film formats, 35mm, 1/2 frame 35mm) and
: > have found that I quickly learn what lens length does what with each
: > camera. I don't really see it as a problem.
: >
: >
: >
: > Eric Stevens
:
: Twelve or so posts concerning focal length vs effective length. Nothing
: concerning the original post, what a group.

The original post was about a rangefinder camera that costs $8000. And you
actually think it odd that we're not still talking about that?

Robert Coe <> writes:
> : Hmm, well... the whole AA-filter thing gives me the impression that
> : Leica doesn't really understand what they're doing with digital
> : photography, and are sort of coasting on past reputation.
> :
> : That's kind of sad and depressing...
>
> Leica no longer matters in real life. You might as well wring your hands over
> the demise of the Pontiac.

I think if they could avoid the "bad pictures" trap, they could usefully
keep their niche as a high-quality luxury brand, bare bones in terms of
features but still good for people that want a well-built small camera
that takes very good pictures and has brand cachet. They've done pretty
well with that formula for a long time.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!